Fully open reproduction of DeepSeek R1, which ends marketing hypes of USA big techs

HKPhysicist over 1 year ago

Hello Friends,

Let me share this repository with you:

Fully open reproduction of DeepSeek R1

https://github.com/huggingface/open-r1

Perhaps, you can make something new out of it.

HKPhysicist 10 months ago

Official DeepSeek v3 source codes now. Perhaps, you may find them useful:

https://github.com/deepseek-ai/DeepSeek-V3

MIT Licence.
Cancel
Vote Up +2 Vote Down

Sign in to reply

Cancel
dang74 over 1 year ago in reply to dougw

I use ChatGPT daily, but I mainly use it to get quick answers. I try and resist getting it to do 'all of the work.' You make a good point when you say, "you are giving as much info as you are getting."
Cancel
Vote Up 0 Vote Down

Sign in to reply

Cancel
dougw over 1 year ago in reply to dang74

So far what I see is people are proud of their AI initiatives and will readily brag about how much it improves their productivity, even if it is just used to generate generic responses such as thank you notes. One thing to worry about with most on-line AI is that you are giving as much info as you are getting.
Cancel
Vote Up +2 Vote Down

Sign in to reply

Cancel
Jan Cumps over 1 year ago in reply to HKPhysicist

HKPhysicist said:
Microsoft is being sued by some creators as well.

Because it uses office 365 user content to train its model?
Cancel
Vote Up 0 Vote Down

Sign in to reply

Cancel
HKPhysicist over 1 year ago in reply to michaelkellett

Microsoft is being sued by some creators as well. It even steals some actress's voice.

As to myself, I never publish any ground-breaking scientific ideas in open web. The recent progress in language model has proved that my worry is realistic. OpenAI simply claims that my ideas are their inventions. They can silence me whenever they want.
Cancel
Vote Up 0 Vote Down

Sign in to reply

Cancel
Jan Cumps over 1 year ago in reply to HKPhysicist

HKPhysicist said:
As to creative art, AI model can do very little.

I used AI to create this image for an e14 contest:
Cancel
Vote Up 0 Vote Down

Sign in to reply

Cancel
bradfordmiller over 1 year ago in reply to Andrew J

I got into it in the 70s, and programs like SHRLDU were already considered "old hat"... but it really started to break out (in terms of hype, anyway) in the early 80s. But considering serious AI lies in the intersection of psychology, systems, linguistics, brain studies, philosophy, ... it really hasn't been that slow. Of course, two AI-winters (so far) hasn't helped - a side effect of the perpetual hype cycle.
Cancel
Vote Up 0 Vote Down

Sign in to reply

Cancel
Andrew J over 1 year ago in reply to bradfordmiller

It was, and obviously very basic given the time period. It's crazy to think that people used to think they were speaking with a real human and even formed emotional attachments with it. I find it amusing that it was written in a programming language called MAD-SLIP! I think AI really came into its own as a serious research topic in the 1980s although there were initiatives before that. Shows how far we've come in all that time. Not!
Cancel
Vote Up 0 Vote Down

Sign in to reply

Cancel
bradfordmiller over 1 year ago in reply to Andrew J

Eliza started to be written in '64. That's 60+ years ago!
Cancel
Vote Up 0 Vote Down

Sign in to reply

Cancel
Andrew J over 1 year ago in reply to HKPhysicist

Sure but there's nothing particularly intelligent about it. That's just collecting and collating information under some given rules. I expect they might perform better only in the sense of (a) doing that task way more quickly than a human; and (b) being able to access and filter more data in a given time period than a human. The best I'll say about it is that the algorithm underpinning it is clever and the natural language processing has become useful because computing power is significantly better than it was 40+ years ago when NLP started being investigated.
Cancel
Vote Up 0 Vote Down

Sign in to reply

Cancel